nanog mailing list archives
Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell () isipp com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:40:46 -0600
On Apr 26, 2019, at 6:10 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote: So providers should stamp this out (because it is “bad”) and support customers who are running TOR nodes (because those are “good”). Did I get that right?
If that is how you see it, then it's right for you. At no time did I mention TOR, nor will I get dragged into that discussion. Anne Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Current thread:
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?, (continued)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Tom Beecher (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 25)
- RE: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? adamv0025 (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Rich Kulawiec (Apr 27)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mike Hammett (Apr 27)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mike Hammett (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Ross Tajvar (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)